The following argument is valid. Use the truth$-$functional form algorithm and

the replacement method to classify the argument as $($a$)$ a tautological consequence of the

premises, $($b$)$ a first$-$order consequence that is not a tautological consequence, or $($c$)$ a

logical consequence that is not a first$-$order consequence. You should justify your

classification by turning in $($a$)$ the truth$-$functional form of the argument, $($b$)$ the truthfunctional form and the argument with nonsense predicates substituted, or $($c$)$ the truthfunctional form, the nonsense argument, and a first$-$order counterexample.

Dog$($a$)$

$$x $($Dog$($x$)->$ Good$($x$))$

Good$($a$)$